Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[dennis]

I think the idea is actually more along the lines of lowest-common-denominator thinking. Like how a lot of police forces use Glocks because there is no safety other than one that is de-activated while pulling the trigger. Which, incidentally, can get set off if you get a shirt tail or something stuck in the trigger guard. And how some lockable doors will unlock when the knob is turned from the inside, in case someone is unable to remember how to turn a fucking lock. I have actually seen some of those that will unlock from both sides with the knob turn, which makes me wonder: What is the point?

Actually, Glocks have three interlocking safety mechanisms, which is two more than traditional handgun design. Glocks are designed such that they will only fire if the trigger is deliberately pulled, which is actually a very good design for police work, since police have uniforms with tucked in shirttails and holsters. If you're going to stick a gun in your waistband--rare, extenuating circumstances aside--you're too stupid to own one. Additionally, the chance that something will happen to wrap around the trigger just right to disable the safeties and pull the trigger while the gun has a round in the chamber is less than the chance that someone will forget to check the manual safety on their gun and either fire it accidentally, or be unable to fire it when they need to.

And doors with interlocked handles are a convenience for door one-way doors that need to stay locked from the outside, like private offices fronting on public areas. As for doors that unlock with a handle on both sides, I've never seen one, but I can imagine that the lock on the door has different settings depending on how the key is turned.

[clockworkjames]

Dennis the spikes in the front end would mean no need for wires though innit.

Nice double post.

[KharBevNor]

the chance that someone will forget to check the manual safety on their gun and either fire it accidentally, or be unable to fire it when they need to.

When I learned to use a gun I spent like, a month learning to load it, unload it, make safe, check it, use the safety, clear a jam and strip and clean the whole weapon before I was allowed to look at a bullet. I thought this was like, the utmost basic of firearm safety.

Wait, I suppose in America it technically isn't required for you to actually know anything about firearm safety to own a gun is it?

Damn.

[calenlass]

Nope! You just gotta wait a week. So that proves you got patience or somthin.

[Nodaisho]

The waiting period depends on the state.

The problem with the requirements for owning one is that it can very easily become ridiculous. In Australia, it takes about six months and several hundred dollars (other than the cost of the gun), even more if, for some reason, you don't shoot well when you probably haven't ever shot before.

I don't know how many safeties are on the glock, but I do know that they all get disabled when you pull the trigger. When someone gets startled, if their finger is on the trigger, they exert more than enough force to pull the trigger, I have heard of police exams where you have to keep your gun on a target for a long period of time, but partway through, the examiner comes up behind you and fires a blank, a lot of people end up shooting that target. Just imagine what would happen if you shot someone because a car backfired.

Like I said, lowest common denominator, if you are going to carry around a gun, you should be instinctively able to operate everything on it, in the dark, one handed, whatever. Your life could very well depend on it. Even if you aren't carrying it, you should know the gun that well, though you really shouldn't be shooting in the dark for fun, seems like a bad idea.

Normal guns only have one safety? The 1911 has a grip safety, a manual safety, and some companies use a firing pin block safety, although even without one, the gun usually has to be dropped quite a ways directly on the barrel to go off. Besides, you should have the hammer back and safety on, either that or safety off, hammer down on an empty chamber. Those are the two safest ways, while hammer down on a loaded chamber can work, it isn't as safe.

[KharBevNor]

All my shooting experience is with bolt-action rifles (L98-A1 and Lee Enfield No.8 ) and break action shotguns. The L98-A1 is an SA-80 with the gas piston removed and a cocking handle attatched to the bolt. It has one safety above the pistol grip. The cocking action is the secondary safety, I suppose. The safety catch on the Lee Enfield makes it impossible to close the breech. If the breech is closed, the weapon is considered live, as far as I remember (long time since I used one). Break action shotguns, of course, you simply carry with the breech open until you want to shoot something.

To be honest, I would think that having to have some level of competence with a weapon as a pre-requisite to owning and using it is kind of a no brainer. I mean, if I wanted to drive I would need to pass a theory test, be taught how to drive, then pass a practical. I would also need to be insured and to have my car inspected for road-worthiness. No one I've ever met considers this unreasonable, and cars aren't engineered specifically to kill people.

Also, if you have such a burning need for a firearm that you cannot wait a couple of months to acquire one, then you probably should not have a gun. Or you should make some friends who are criminals. Up to you really.

[SonofZ3]

Here in PA you have to be 21 and pass a background check to own a gun, and pretty much the same for a concealed carry permit.
My Steyr M9-A1 only has the trigger safety, and my taurus .38 special no safety at all. If I pull the trigger it fires. Both these firearms have lockable safety mechanisms that can be activated and deactivated by small keys supplied with the firearms, but those locks are pointless when it comes to carrying the firearm, in which case both are only stopped from firing by pulling the trigger.

I realize there is a lot of anti-firearm sentiment on these forums, but if I'm pointing either of my handguns at someone it means that they're either trying to rob me or gain unlawful entry into my appartment, either way I don't feel bad if I get startled and accidentally discharge a round into the target. After all, I'm the one facing the murder/excessive use of force charges as a result.

[KharBevNor]

I don't see requiring that you know how to operate a dangerous machine before you are allowed to own one is anti-gun sentiment.

[Johnny C]

I realize there is a lot of anti-firearm sentiment on these forums, but if I'm pointing either of my handguns at someone it means that they're either trying to rob me or gain unlawful entry into my appartment, either way I don't feel bad if I get startled and accidentally discharge a round into the target.

Jesus Goddamn at least you could call them something other than "the target."

[dennis]

Dennis the spikes in the front end would mean no need for wires though innit.

Nice double post.

I did post twice, on two different topics, yes.

As for the second set of electrodes:

Here is Taser's commercial for the XREP. At about 4:15, it shows the second set of electrodes deploying.

You can't really pass a current through anything if it doesn't have a complete circuit. A Taser isn't effective unless the electrodes cover a significant area of the body, hence the two electrodes fired from a standard Taser, and the second set of electrodes as desc. above.

[dennis]

the chance that someone will forget to check the manual safety on their gun and either fire it accidentally, or be unable to fire it when they need to.

When I learned to use a gun I spent like, a month learning to load it, unload it, make safe, check it, use the safety, clear a jam and strip and clean the whole weapon before I was allowed to look at a bullet. I thought this was like, the utmost basic of firearm safety.

Wait, I suppose in America it technically isn't required for you to actually know anything about firearm safety to own a gun is it?

Damn.

I'm just saying, if someone is in danger of accidentally firing a Glock, he is probably in danger of forgetting what position his safety is in, or whether his gun is loaded, or if a round is chambered, with a traditional handgun safety.

Though, yeah, in America, you can walk into a store and buy a shotgun or rifle off the rack and take it home. For a handgun, you need a permit in most states, which typically requires that you pass a safety course.

[Beast]

now thats something that will make the world a much better place

[dennis]

I don't know how many safeties are on the glock, but I do know that they all get disabled when you pull the trigger. When someone gets startled, if their finger is on the trigger, they exert more than enough force to pull the trigger, I have heard of police exams where you have to keep your gun on a target for a long period of time, but partway through, the examiner comes up behind you and fires a blank, a lot of people end up shooting that target. Just imagine what would happen if you shot someone because a car backfired.

Dude, if your finger is on the trigger, your safety is supposed to be off, regardless of the make of the gun. That is: if your finger is on the trigger, you should be ready to shoot whatever the gun is pointed at. This is the most basic gun safety rule there is.

The mechanical safety of a gun is just a backup to your own safe use of a gun. It is foolish to depend on the safety.

Normal guns only have one safety? The 1911 has a grip safety, a manual safety, and some companies use a firing pin block safety, although even without one, the gun usually has to be dropped quite a ways directly on the barrel to go off. Besides, you should have the hammer back and safety on, either that or safety off, hammer down on an empty chamber. Those are the two safest ways, while hammer down on a loaded chamber can work, it isn't as safe.

Traditionally, a gun has one manual safety. I didn't say anything about "normal" guns. The grip safety of a 1911 is more like the trigger safety of the Glock than a manual safety. It's designed to disengage when you purposefully and properly handle the gun.

[Johnny C]

I'm unclear on what this has to do with the fact that what is supposed to be the safer alternative to firearms is now actually a firearm.

[KharBevNor]

Why would you even have a round in the chamber if you weren't going to shoot anything?

[Johnny C]

Why would you have a trigger unless you were planning on pulling it?

Why would you have a gun unless you were planning on using it?

I guess this naturally leads into "Why would you have a Taser shotgun unless you were planning on firing a high-impact electric round at someone?" And then that leads into "Why would you even consider doing that?"

[KharBevNor]

I would like a gun for target shooting. Also taking apart and cleaning in an obsessive compulsive fashion to intimidate folks.

[Johnny C]

Might I suggest buying a collection of sauce pumps?

That way, you have the things to take apart and clean in an obsessive-compulsive fashion, and instead of intimidating them you can delight them with a collection of sauces!

[KharBevNor]

I don't like most sauces. I like, er, bread sauce, pepper sauce, um...the sauce baked beans comes in?

That's about it.

[Nodaisho]

I realize there is a lot of anti-firearm sentiment on these forums, but if I'm pointing either of my handguns at someone it means that they're either trying to rob me or gain unlawful entry into my appartment, either way I don't feel bad if I get startled and accidentally discharge a round into the target.

Jesus Goddamn at least you could call them something other than "the target."

The BG? For Bad Guy?

Guns aren't specifically made for killing, they are made for sending high velocity little pieces of lead, frequently jacketed with metal, toward a target. Just like cars aren't made for killing, they are heavy objects made for moving at pretty high velocities, controllable easily by a human. But I bet you a hell of a lot more people get killed with cars than illegally with guns, even counting the "accidents" that people have with guns.

My dad has a .22 pump gun, he used to use it to kill rabbits, when they tried to eat his crops while he was farming. Food for the table, right? He also has a double-barreled shotgun that we don't know the quality of, or if it is even safe to fire, since it went through a flood and we don't know how old it is. Want to take a guess as to how many times they have been used in a crime while we have possessed them? Or how many times they have even loaded themselves?

For many shooters, shooting is a relaxing experience. It is a discipline requiring careful muscle discipline, breathing control, and co-ordination. Basically, yoga with a boom. I read something like that somewhere, wish I could remember where.

Dennis, I just don't feel safe with the idea of a gun where pulling the trigger removes the safety. I have always been taught that the safety is in case of accidents, including the trigger getting pulled when it isn't supposed to. Sure, most revolvers don't have a safety at all, and they don't go off randomly that I can tell (unless possessed by one B. Fife), but it just goes against the grain, what I have been taught since I was four and shooting tin cans with a red ryder on the outskirts of town.

[jhocking]

What is the purpose of a safety that disengages when the trigger is pulled? I don't know a lot about guns, and so I am totally at a loss for what the safety does if not prevent the gun from firing when the trigger is pulled.

[KharBevNor]

Guns aren't specifically made for killing, they are made for sending high velocity little pieces of lead, frequently jacketed with metal, toward a target.

Which kills people. You see, what you're doing is confusing mechanical function with purpose of design. For example, the mechanical function of a camera is to open a little shutter that lets light hit on a roll of photosensitive plastic film that winds by. Yet its purpose is to take images of things. The whole history of the design of firearms has involved the effort to make them into more efficient and deadly combat weapons. Guns can be used for lots of fun, completely non-lethal things, but in my opinion if you ever lose sight of the fact that this is a weapon that is designed to kill people then you're doing it wrong. The same for any weapon.

@Jhocking: it stops the gun going off if you drop it, I suppose.

[Nodaisho]

It prevents the gun from firing when dropped, but it takes a good bit of dropping for that to actually happen, the colt SAA (think old western pistol, like in a fistful of dollars, not the good the bad and the ugly, though) was very prone to it, not sure what part of it caused that.

edit: All right, Khar. Look at this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walther_GSP and tell me that clunky thing is meant for killing. And yet, that weapon is banned from import into the U.S. as it is claimed to have "No sporting purpose", because the BAFTE wants to make itself seem useful. Many designs were originally for killing, but they frequently get changed for target purposes. You know of the infamous M82 .50 cal rifle, right? That was a long range target rifle for years before the military decided they might have a use for it, after that happened, you got the people claiming that people would use it to shoot down planes in flight (which you couldn't without extreme luck, due to the high speed of a plane, stationary position of the shooter, amount of hits needed, and amount of shots you would get).

[Johnny C]

The BG? For Bad Guy?

You and I both know that the target in question is a living, breathing human being.

But I bet you a hell of a lot more people get killed with cars than illegally with guns, even counting the "accidents" that people have with guns.

Statistics aside for the time being, why even make the distinction? It's more worrying to me that you could conceivably be killed legally with a gun. Beyond that, a car isn't meant to run into anything, so when it does it's not being used for its purpose. When a gun maims or injures someone, it's done its job.

My dad has a .22 pump gun, he used to use it to kill rabbits, when they tried to eat his crops while he was farming. Food for the table, right? He also has a double-barreled shotgun that we don't know the quality of, or if it is even safe to fire, since it went through a flood and we don't know how old it is. Want to take a guess as to how many times they have been used in a crime while we have possessed them? Or how many times they have even loaded themselves?

In the case of a collectible or a rifle in a rural setting, the argument could be easily made that they're necessary for the job, and I'm certainly not arguing that. If you live in the suburbs and for some reason you have a handgun in your home, that's a different story.

For many shooters, shooting is a relaxing experience. It is a discipline requiring careful muscle discipline, breathing control, and co-ordination. Basically, yoga with a boom. I read something like that somewhere, wish I could remember where.

I have to voice a significant doubt - and here, if anywhere, is this post's weak point - that there's nothing out there that can equal this experience. For me, I play music, I act, I play video games. On occasion I bike, and on rarer occasions I swim. All of these are, at the end of the day, relaxing experiences for me, requiring careful muscle discipline, breathing control and co-ordination in all circumstances. While I don't doubt that shooting is a relaxing experience for folks, I feel that all the energy directed towards firearm culture could be better expended on something constructive rather than destructive.

Dennis, I just don't feel safe with the idea of a gun where pulling the trigger removes the safety. I have always been taught that the safety is in case of accidents, including the trigger getting pulled when it isn't supposed to. Sure, most revolvers don't have a safety at all, and they don't go off randomly that I can tell (unless possessed by one B. Fife), but it just goes against the grain, what I have been taught since I was four and shooting tin cans with a red ryder on the outskirts of town.

This on the other hand is sound. If it's necessary for a handgun to exist then the safety should do its job - namely, make sure the gun isn't fired unless the safety is deliberately disengaged. If that takes some more time, consider that extra incentive to have readily available alternatives.

[KharBevNor]

Personally I find one on one single combat with swords, shields, axes and knives provides most of my relaxation needs.

Also sex, and food.

I still enjoy target shooting though. I like blatantly mechanical things and hand-eye co-ordination and loud noises! I'm not sure I'd quite raise it to the level of a spiritual experience.

[Alex C]

Yep. They're called drop safeties; they're required in states like California.

As far as the whole "They turned the safe alternative to a firearm into a firearm!" thing, I guess I just don't see what the big deal is about as long as it's properly engineered. Tasers aren't really intended to be an alternative to guns so much as they're meant to be an alternative to killing people; a fine distinction to be sure, but it is a meaningful one. Guns do their job extremely well and they're based on a mature, proven technology. If taser firearm could be engineered in such a way as to be as safe as tasers while outperforming them in other categories, I wouldn't really have a problem with it. I guess I just don't see any ethical difference between shooting someone with taser propelled by a CO2 cartridge and a taser propelled by gunpowder provided they're both safely designed.

[Johnny C]

Since when were tasers safe? At best, they're less unsafe.

[KharBevNor]

When are tasers an alternative to killing people? Seems to me if there's any situation that really requires the use of a gun, (ie. the criminal has a gun) law enforcement personnel are probably going to shoot the guy anyway. Are you saying that before the advent of tasers people being prats at a political speech, or making a fuss in a university library, would have been shot?

[Alex C]

Yeesh. You're really quibbling over the safe unsafe target bad guy victim stuff tonight. I get what you're saying; you don't like tasers; I don't really like them either. I'm just saying I don't really see how whether it's a shotgun or not should really matter provided they're both operating within similar parameters.

And yeah Khar, I know what you mean; I said more or less the same thing earlier; If you're not willing to kill someone over it's probably not a big enough deal to go shooting people with anything over. I just thought the "OMG, the taser comes out of a gun now!" part needlessly alarmist, since I don't really think it changes anything.

[Nodaisho]

The BG? For Bad Guy?

You and I both know that the target in question is a living, breathing human being.

Yes, and while I don't like the idea of having to do violence, if it is a choice between shooting someone that is trying to rape or kill me or a loved one, and letting it happen, I would try to stop him/her, I would not "shoot to kill", nor would I shoot to wound, I would shoot to live, and keep my loved one(s) alive. Whether the aggressor is still alive afterwards isn't as important.

But I bet you a hell of a lot more people get killed with cars than illegally with guns, even counting the "accidents" that people have with guns.

Statistics aside for the time being, why even make the distinction? It's more worrying to me that you could conceivably be killed legally with a gun. Beyond that, a car isn't meant to run into anything, so when it does it's not being used for its purpose. When a gun maims or injures someone, it's done its job.

If you are killed legally with a gun, it means you are breaking into someone's house/vehicle (in some states), or trying to do something that can be legally responded to with lethal force. Most likely (again), raping or killing. The purpose of the object depends on the person that uses it, it has its own potential, but how said potential is used is completely up to the user.

My dad has a .22 pump gun, he used to use it to kill rabbits, when they tried to eat his crops while he was farming. Food for the table, right? He also has a double-barreled shotgun that we don't know the quality of, or if it is even safe to fire, since it went through a flood and we don't know how old it is. Want to take a guess as to how many times they have been used in a crime while we have possessed them? Or how many times they have even loaded themselves?

In the case of a collectible or a rifle in a rural setting, the argument could be easily made that they're necessary for the job, and I'm certainly not arguing that. If you live in the suburbs and for some reason you have a handgun in your home, that's a different story.

We live in a... not sure, it isn't really suburban, but it isn't urban either, and definitely not rural, it is nice. Why a rifle and not a handgun? Don't believe Lynyrd Skynyrd, handguns are commonly used for target shooting as well. Rifles are more powerful, I would sure as hell rather be facing a guy with a handgun than a guy with a rifle. Course, I would rather not be in a situation where someone will be shooting at me at all.

For many shooters, shooting is a relaxing experience. It is a discipline requiring careful muscle discipline, breathing control, and co-ordination. Basically, yoga with a boom. I read something like that somewhere, wish I could remember where.

I have to voice a significant doubt - and here, if anywhere, is this post's weak point - that there's nothing out there that can equal this experience. For me, I play music, I act, I play video games. On occasion I bike, and on rarer occasions I swim. All of these are, at the end of the day, relaxing experiences for me, requiring careful muscle discipline, breathing control and co-ordination in all circumstances. While I don't doubt that shooting is a relaxing experience for folks, I feel that all the energy directed towards firearm culture could be better expended on something constructive rather than destructive.

So basically you are saying someone else shouldn't be able to do something because you don't like it?

Dennis, I just don't feel safe with the idea of a gun where pulling the trigger removes the safety. I have always been taught that the safety is in case of accidents, including the trigger getting pulled when it isn't supposed to. Sure, most revolvers don't have a safety at all, and they don't go off randomly that I can tell (unless possessed by one B. Fife), but it just goes against the grain, what I have been taught since I was four and shooting tin cans with a red ryder on the outskirts of town.

This on the other hand is sound. If it's necessary for a handgun to exist then the safety should do its job - namely, make sure the gun isn't fired unless the safety is deliberately disengaged. If that takes some more time, consider that extra incentive to have readily available alternatives.

It probably takes about an eighth of a second. fighting is what happens when something went really wrong somewhere, and you can't get away, at least not without giving up something you aren't willing to give up.

Khar, I find it very peaceful, just about spiritual. I am somewhat odd though.

[redglasscurls]

All this aside, if it came down to it I'd still definitely prefer to be shot with a taser shotgun than a regular one.

[Nodaisho]

True. I would prefer most to be the one doing the shooting, if I had to take part. I would prefer not taking part though.

[Johnny C]

Yes, and while I don't like the idea of having to do violence, if it is a choice between shooting someone that is trying to rape or kill me or a loved one, and letting it happen, I would try to stop him/her, I would not "shoot to kill", nor would I shoot to wound, I would shoot to live, and keep my loved one(s) alive. Whether the aggressor is still alive afterwards isn't as important.

What if they aren't trying to rape or kill you and you fuck that up? Then someone's dead. Myself and due process disagree with you that the aggressor living is unimportant.

If you are killed legally with a gun, it means you are breaking into someone's house/vehicle (in some states), or trying to do something that can be legally responded to with lethal force. Most likely (again), raping or killing. The purpose of the object depends on the person that uses it, it has its own potential, but how said potential is used is completely up to the user.

I know what killing legally means - I'm wondering why you chose to rule out legal firearm deaths as well. A death from a gun is a death from a gun, whether it was legal or not. It's whether it's necessary or not that's the issue. Also, what other purpose would a gun have been designed for than to shoot stuff and damage it? You can't light an oven with it. It would be unwise to use it to hang paintings. Elvis was able to successfully use one as a television remote but the only button it had was "Off."

We live in a... not sure, it isn't really suburban, but it isn't urban either, and definitely not rural, it is nice. Why a rifle and not a handgun? Don't believe Lynyrd Skynyrd, handguns are commonly used for target shooting as well. Rifles are more powerful, I would sure as hell rather be facing a guy with a handgun than a guy with a rifle. Course, I would rather not be in a situation where someone will be shooting at me at all.

You live outside of an urban setting and you own a rifle, then you probably live in a place with coyotes, deer and the like. Broad generalization, I know, but in that case firearms are useful for defending yourself from non-human attackers (the vast majority of which won't listen to reason), fending off animals which may be a danger to your farm and finding yourself food. You live in the city with a handgun in your drawer, you probably aren't going to be shooting rabbits away from crops any time soon.

So basically you are saying someone else shouldn't be able to do something because you don't like it?

No, I'm saying that it's not the only hobby available and that it providing a Zen-like experience isn't a convincing argument for its purpose and its safety.

In a purely hypothetical scenario, I find that fucking dogs is an activity requiring careful muscle discipline, breathing control, and co-ordination. Should I keep fucking dogs, or should I perhaps pursue an alternative path?

It probably takes about an eighth of a second. fighting is what happens when something went really wrong somewhere, and you can't get away, at least not without giving up something you aren't willing to give up.

A fight can take anywhere from ten minutes to an eighth of a second to boil over. You can still make a mistake at any point in that period of time, and that mistake might cost someone else their life.

If the reason you own a gun is so that you won't die if a lunatic fights you, then take some physical, non-lethal self-defense courses. Once again, they require careful muscle discipline, breathing control, and co-ordination. They can also save your life without ending another's.

[KharBevNor]

I find that fucking dogs is an activity requiring careful muscle discipline, breathing control, and co-ordination. Should I keep fucking dogs, or should I perhaps pursue an alternative path?

If that's what turns you on man.

[Johnny C]

I must admit I do find your mother quite arousing.

[onewheelwizzard]

daaaaaaaaaamn

[KharBevNor]

I demand satisfaction sir.

Since you do not like guns we will fight with swords.

You can handle a sword, right?

[Johnny C]

Shouldn't you have suggested a pen? You Brits invented the damn language.

[KharBevNor]

Us and the French.

[calenlass]

And the Germans, technically! And those crazy people who used to live in Italy with psycho emperors!

[Something Witty]

Guns are a pretty serious topic, full of emotions and media spin, they are loud, scary tools(Yes, a gun is a tool).

Saying that a gun is a tool designed solely for the purpose is like saying a hammer is a tool designed solely for the purpose of destroying things. An utter fallacy.

Guns, while capable of being used for killing people, were actually developed to make hunting easier, the same way a bow and arrow can be used to kill people while also used to make hunting easier. Do not confuse this as a denial of the fact that guns were designed to end the lives of living creatures, they were.

Let us continue with the gun = hammer line of thought:

Give a carpenter a hammer and he can build a house. Give someone else the exact same hammer, and he can knock the house down.


A gun, like a hammer, a knife, or a screwdriver is a tool designed by humans to make life easier for humans. Do not confuse the misuse of a tool with it's intended use.

In the hands of the right person, a gun is a tool that can save a human life. In the hands of the wrong person, a gun is a tool that can take a human life. Suggesting that several small bits of metal, plastic and grease are inherently dangerous or "bad" is ignorance in it's purest form. A gun is not a living thing. It cannot jump up of it's own accord and kill anything. The same way a hammer cannot drive a nail if a human doesn't swing it.

Am I suggesting that everyone should have a gun? No, that would be stupid. Some people should be kept very far away from guns. Should I not be allowed to own a gun because someone else would misuse one? No.

As for the "guns = cars," here's what I have to say to that:

A driver's license is permission to drive on public roads. At any age, you can walk into a car dealership and buy any car on any lot for your private use on your private property. At the age of 16(or 18, whatever it is where you live), you get a license to use said car on public roads after passing a written, then practical test. I think this is a fine system. If you want to let people buy guns for their private use on their private property, then give them a license to use them on public property at a set age after passing a written, then practical exam, have at it, I think it would be wonderful and wholly support the idea.

Post Script: If anyone wishes to have a civil, intelligent discussion in reference to guns and/or "gun control," feel free to send me a PM. I'm done here.

[KharBevNor]

Guns, while capable of being used for killing people, were actually developed to make hunting easier, the same way a bow and arrow can be used to kill people while also used to make hunting easier. Do not confuse this as a denial of the fact that guns were designed to end the lives of living creatures, they were.

OH MY WHAT AN EFFICIENT LOOKING HUNTING WEAPON.

[Johnny C]

Maybe they are hunting a Leviathan?

Ozy, while I appreciate the sentiment that intent behind use is key - see up there where I defend farmers using rifles as deterrents against feral animals and as a means of sustenance - arguing that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" sort of begs the question: if people kill people, why give 'em more weapons? I'm willing to tolerate gun ownership as the "right" a developed nation has determined its citizens possess, especially with stringent safety requirements, and I'm certainly in favour of using guns as tools rather than weapons - again, see my farmer example. Tying this back to the topic at hand, the Taser shotgun is not a tool. It is very much a weapon. I am not as concerned about its widespread uses as its potential for abuse, no matter how localized the situation.

[öde]

Things you can do with a gun:

1) Shoot inanimate objects, either causing no harm (targets), damage (wheels of a car or something), or indirectly cause harm or death.
2) Intimidate someone.
3) Wound or kill living creatures.

Things you can do with a hammer:

1) Insert nails.
2) Remove nails.
3) Beat panels and stuff.
4) Join wood and other materials that need to be forced into place.
5) Work metal.
6) Positive destruction (chiseling, etc, destroying a house or a desk isn't a bad thing if it's decrepit).
7) Negative destruction (smash someone's car up, etc).
8) Intimidate someone.
9) Kill or maim a living creature.

There's probably lots of other things you can use hammers for and they're certainly not as easy to threaten or hurt people with (unless you have a war hammer I guess but they're big and extremely short-range).

[negative creep]

Guns aren't specifically made for killing

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha

I'm really sick of this discussion, as I have it in meat life more than enough. Just wanted to point that one out.

[Nodaisho]

What if they aren't trying to rape or kill you and you fuck that up? Then someone's dead. Myself and due process disagree with you that the aggressor living is unimportant.

Then I don't shoot them. If I were to use a gun on someone, it means they were almost certainly directing lethal force towards me or mine, what I said is that I would not specifically aim to not kill them, as that would be foolish, hitting the target is tough enough when they are shooting back, much less making a western shoot-it-out-of-their-hands move.

I know what killing legally means - I'm wondering why you chose to rule out legal firearm deaths as well. A death from a gun is a death from a gun, whether it was legal or not. It's whether it's necessary or not that's the issue. Also, what other purpose would a gun have been designed for than to shoot stuff and damage it? You can't light an oven with it. It would be unwise to use it to hang paintings. Elvis was able to successfully use one as a television remote but the only button it had was "Off."

I choose to rule out legal firearm deaths because those are self defense, do you have an issue with someone defending themselves from someone intent on killing them? Yes, they hit things and cause damage to them, what is the problem with that? Paper is people too? What about tin cans? Are you going to stop people from using paper shredders or from smashing tin cans? It all comes down to what you shoot and damage.

You live outside of an urban setting and you own a rifle, then you probably live in a place with coyotes, deer and the like. Broad generalization, I know, but in that case firearms are useful for defending yourself from non-human attackers (the vast majority of which won't listen to reason), fending off animals which may be a danger to your farm and finding yourself food. You live in the city with a handgun in your drawer, you probably aren't going to be shooting rabbits away from crops any time soon.

We don't live out where Coyotes and deer are, we live where there are a few foxes, but we can't legally discharge a firearm in town, so if one comes after our chickens, we would have to just run after it and try to scare it away. Can't even fire off a BB gun in town legally. And again, you discount the possibility of having a gun for self defense against humans. Don't give me some BS line about how if nobody had guns, you wouldn't need to use one. Firstly, you know as well as I do that a determined criminal could find a gun on the black market, no matter what the laws. Secondly, you want a 80 year old grandmother to have to fistfight with a 20-something thug?

No, I'm saying that it's not the only hobby available and that it providing a Zen-like experience isn't a convincing argument for its purpose and its safety.

In a purely hypothetical scenario, I find that fucking dogs is an activity requiring careful muscle discipline, breathing control, and co-ordination. Should I keep fucking dogs, or should I perhaps pursue an alternative path?

See, I don't care, just don't do it around me, and don't do it to my dog. Because unlike you, I can mind my own goddamn business. Your hobbies aren't my business, extreme examples (mass murdering, arson, burglary) non-withstanding. edit: Actually... I dunno, the animal might not be consenting, you would have to consider that. I can't say I spend all that much time contemplating the morality of bestiality.

A fight can take anywhere from ten minutes to an eighth of a second to boil over. You can still make a mistake at any point in that period of time, and that mistake might cost someone else their life.

If the reason you own a gun is so that you won't die if a lunatic fights you, then take some physical, non-lethal self-defense courses. Once again, they require careful muscle discipline, breathing control, and co-ordination. They can also save your life without ending another's.

All right, you try to fistfight with two people, both armed with firearms, when they see you from 20 meters away. I will go for cover and my gun. I'll call an ambulance for you too, you will need it. Don't get me wrong, I know that martial arts can defeat someone with a firearm, but you have to be up there touching them, and I wouldn't gamble on that. Go ahead, get martial arts training, but that should just be one tool in your toolchest.

Creep, look higher up on the page. Find my mention of the GSP and the M82. I would say that some bullets are made specifically for killing, but then again, people like to use JHPs for target shooting since they don't penetrate as far into the backstop, and some FMJs will end up going a hell of a lot further than you thought they would.

[jhocking]

tl;dr

[Slick]

Man, how often has anyone here had to defend themselves with lethal force? I'm not asking that rhetorically to argue in a snide sort of way, I'm asking seriously.
I know plenty of people who have needed their seat belts, car/home/health insurance, and even that funny guard to keep you from killing yourself with a cuisinart. I have never, ever, even once had a tangible example of someone I know or have encountered tangentially needing and/or using a firearm for self defense purposes.

By the way, it's the self-defense/responsible user logic that leads to the arms race and the cold war.

[negative creep]

Nodaisho, a gun is a gun and a gun is a weapon. A weapon is not a tool (exept if you define "weapon" as "tool for killing living things"). The type of ammunition used doesn't change that fundamental fact.

[Alex C]

By the way, it's the self-defense/responsible user logic that leads to the arms race and the cold war.

I hate to point this out, since I'm really just playing devil's advocate here but... Ever notice how the Cold War ended without the US and Russia nuking eachother? One could make the argument MAD worked until it was no longer needed, as insane as that might sound.